PDA

View Full Version : Rogers weighs in on Vazquez deal


delben91
03-08-2007, 05:30 AM
Link (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070307rogers,1,3251753.column?coll=cs-whitesox-utility)

:rolleyes:

(my apologies if this is in another thread somewhere)

jabrch
03-08-2007, 05:55 AM
But I don't think pitchers with his guts, command and presence come along very often

GUTS? Great - he's got guts. So does my cat. Rogers is pudtastic. If Mark or Jon want to stay here, a deal will be made that will make them very wealthy and very comfortable. If they want to get 5 year deals for 75-100mm, they will go elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that strategy regardless of how much guts either of them have.

And for the record, if you measure guts by weight or volume, we have Big Bad Bobby, so we've got a glut of guts.

Thome25
03-08-2007, 07:03 AM
I read the headline and the first paragraph of that piece of **** article and then I was done.

When did Phil Rogers become Jay Mariotti?

Jurr
03-08-2007, 07:25 AM
When these guys want to become more "esteemed" in the journalism field, in search of bigger paydays and that spot as an ESPN analyst, they need to find that level of controversy to get there. It happens every day.

Rogers is trying to get to the top by firing repeated salvos at the Sox. He wants to be the soothsayer just in case the Sox struggle. He wants to be the "I told you so" guy that foresaw it all.

What a dolt.

cws05champ
03-08-2007, 08:30 AM
You know...no matter what the Sox do, it will be the wrong move in Rogers eyes. Before he said " 4/5ths of the rotation will be gone within two years". Now that Vazquez has signed an extension..."so the Whitesox are building around the backend of their rotation, good idea". What are they supposed to do, pay their whole stating rotation $60Mil? Even if the sox re-signed Buehrle I firmly believe Rogers would come back and say " The Sox over paid for a pitcher who does not have high end stuff and could fail if his location leaves him. He is a tool, and just trying to stir things up. When he writes a good articke I say so, but lately it has been few and far between.

soxtalker
03-08-2007, 09:10 AM
You know...no matter what the Sox do, it will be the wrong move in Rogers eyes. Before he said " 4/5ths of the rotation will be gone within two years". Now that Vazquez has signed an extension..."so the Whitesox are building around the backend of their rotation, good idea". What are they supposed to do, pay their whole stating rotation $60Mil? Even if the sox re-signed Buehrle I firmly believe Rogers would come back and say " The Sox over paid for a pitcher who does not have high end stuff and could fail if his location leaves him. He is a tool, and just trying to stir things up. When he writes a good articke I say so, but lately it has been few and far between.

I don't see any evidence for that. Rogers has been very consistent in his articles the past few months. While people may disagree with him, he is not just trashing the Sox. His comments really sound like a guy who cares a lot about the Sox and hates to see the experienced guys go. I don't happen to agree with him. But he is very close to the Sox and has enormous experience. We benefit from having his opinion.

rdivaldi
03-08-2007, 09:23 AM
I don't see any evidence for that. Rogers has been very consistent in his articles the past few months. While people may disagree with him, he is not just trashing the Sox. His comments really sound like a guy who cares a lot about the Sox and hates to see the experienced guys go. I don't happen to agree with him. But he is very close to the Sox and has enormous experience. We benefit from having his opinion.

I also agree that Phil sounds more like an angry fan than a biased reporter. However I do think that it's starting to get old and I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this:

"I compared those five guys to each other in each of the last three seasons based on victories, earned-run average and innings. Then I created a formula that weighted the 2005 rankings twice as heavily as '04, and the '06 rankings three times as heavily as '04, so that what happened last would influence the present value the most."

You gotta be kidding me Phil....

infohawk
03-08-2007, 09:26 AM
When did Phil Rogers become Jay Mariotti?
I won't say he's nearly that bad (but point taken). Still, Phil has become exceedingly negative where the Sox are concerned since the stakes were raised following the 2005 season. It's funny how his analysis is so relative as opposed to objective. I remember all the glowing things he was saying about the Sox prior to the 2003 season. The Sox had just aquired Bartolo Colon and Phil was just raving about the talent and durability of the pitching staff. He went so far as to argue that the Sox would likely be a playoff team because they had so many 200 inning per year starters. The Sox won 80-something games that year and couldn't beat the lowly Tigers to save their lives. It would have been worse had Loiaza not had an unforseen career year with 21 wins. This pitching staff is far superior to the one Phil raved about then, but all we get is negativity about what might happen the following year.

Phil has always been one of my favorite columnists. I still like the guy, but there has been a decidedly negative tilt in his writing. He should at least balance it out by suggesting that there is a possibility that KW's deals for young pitching might be looked back upon as masterful moves in an out-of-control free agent market. It's one thing to suggest positive or negative scenarios, but quite another to automatically assume the worst case scenario.

Whitesox029
03-08-2007, 02:43 PM
How many times can you write the same article in the span of three months? The problem is the Vazquez deal gave him a new angle to take, so it appears on the outside to be a different subject.

We get it already, Phil. You disagree with Kenny's strategy. Now why don't you write an article about something other than the '07-'08 offseason?

In regards to Rogers being Mariotti, I don't think that's possible. Rogers and Downey constantly criticize the direction the team is going, but they stop short of personal attacks and vendettas. My beef with them is that they are too pessimistic and they're basically recycling the same article that has appeared every other day since SoxFest, which is journalistically irresponsible.

SOXPHILE
03-08-2007, 03:27 PM
I also agree that Phil sounds more like an angry fan than a biased reporter. However I do think that it's starting to get old and I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this:

"I compared those five guys to each other in each of the last three seasons based on victories, earned-run average and innings. Then I created a formula that weighted the 2005 rankings twice as heavily as '04, and the '06 rankings three times as heavily as '04, so that what happened last would influence the present value the most."

You gotta be kidding me Phil....


I was thinking the same thing. You've created "a formula", Phil ? Is it something so super secret that you can't tell us what it is, or how it actually works, so we just have to take your word for it ? O.K. Well, whatever it is, just remember to carry the 8, and that I comes before E, except after C. :rolleyes:

Iwritecode
03-08-2007, 03:47 PM
I also agree that Phil sounds more like an angry fan than a biased reporter. However I do think that it's starting to get old and I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this:

"I compared those five guys to each other in each of the last three seasons based on victories, earned-run average and innings. Then I created a formula that weighted the 2005 rankings twice as heavily as '04, and the '06 rankings three times as heavily as '04, so that what happened last would influence the present value the most."

You gotta be kidding me Phil....

I couldn't believe the stats he was using to compare them...

SBSoxFan
03-08-2007, 03:56 PM
I was thinking the same thing. You've created "a formula", Phil ? Is it something so super secret that you can't tell us what it is, or how it actually works, so we just have to take your word for it ? O.K. Well, whatever it is, just remember to carry the 8, and that I comes before E, except after C. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's proprietary.

rwcescato
03-08-2007, 03:59 PM
I read the headline and the first paragraph of that piece of **** article and then I was done.

When did Phil Rogers become Jay Mariotti?

All that guy does is bash the Sox lately. I am sick of it. I forgot a $300 milion spending spree guarentees a flubbie championship. At least thats what Big ZZZZZ predicts.

rwcescato
03-08-2007, 04:05 PM
When these guys want to become more "esteemed" in the journalism field, in search of bigger paydays and that spot as an ESPN analyst, they need to find that level of controversy to get there. It happens every day.

Rogers is trying to get to the top by firing repeated salvos at the Sox. He wants to be the soothsayer just in case the Sox struggle. He wants to be the "I told you so" guy that foresaw it all.

What a dolt.

Cangelosi's kid is in my nieces grade.

UserNameBlank
03-08-2007, 05:05 PM
I read the headline and the first paragraph of that piece of **** article and then I was done.

When did Phil Rogers become Jay Mariotti?

You got further than I did. I read the headline and closed it.

I don't have a problem with sportswriters having a strong opinion about something, even if that opinion is an unpopular one. The problem with these guys though is that the Mariotti/Dayne Perry/and now Phil Rogers types will not let go of a certain idea they have until they have been proven incorrect beyond a shadow of doubt. And then, when they finally do give their praise, they all act like the players they counted on underperforming actually grossly overachieved and it was the organization itself than won some impossible gamble.

Vernam
03-08-2007, 07:12 PM
I don't see any evidence for that. Rogers has been very consistent in his articles the past few months. While people may disagree with him, he is not just trashing the Sox. His comments really sound like a guy who cares a lot about the Sox and hates to see the experienced guys go. I don't happen to agree with him. But he is very close to the Sox and has enormous experience. We benefit from having his opinion.Unlike a lot of the reporters and columnists, it's really hard (for me, at least) to dislike Rogers. But it's too coincidental -- just too blatant -- that he's taken this stance toward the Sox at the very time that his employers opened the coffers wide for Soriano, Lilly, Marquis, Ramirez, and let's not forget Piniella. For the first time in years, they're seriously threatened by this sustained run the Sox are on. The incessant negative coverage of Buehrle's situation just reeks of a strategy to make the Sox look bad even before something negative happens. Why? Because they know damn well that it's quite likely nothing negative will happen, at least on the field. So they bash Kenny before the team even has a chance to prove them wrong. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Spring is the Cubs' time. All their supporters, especially the paid ones at the Trib, get to wax poetic about the new season's promise. But even the shills know better these days, and that's why they're front-loading the 2007 baseball coverage to make the Sox look bad while they still can. Then when the Cubs crap out and we win 90 to 100 games, they'll grudgingly have to cover the story they'd obviously prefer to ignore. Even if -- maybe especially if -- the Sox win it all again, the Kenny bashing is just going to get worse. It's one reason I get so frustrated when Sox fans themselves indulge in it, because it's practically consorting with the enemy.

Vernam

maurice
03-08-2007, 07:51 PM
It also is significant that they're harping on things that may or may not happen AFTER 162+ meaningful games are played. Once upon a time, it was considered a GOOD THING to have a player in his "contract year," because it was assumed that the contract situation would make him play BETTER. I guess that only applies when the team is not the Sox.
:rolleyes:

A. Cavatica
03-08-2007, 08:07 PM
I also agree that Phil sounds more like an angry fan than a biased reporter. However I do think that it's starting to get old and I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this:

"I compared those five guys to each other in each of the last three seasons based on victories, earned-run average and innings. Then I created a formula that weighted the 2005 rankings twice as heavily as '04, and the '06 rankings three times as heavily as '04, so that what happened last would influence the present value the most."

You gotta be kidding me Phil....

That formula's not his invention. Bill James used that formula (or something very much like it) to predict future performances, IIRC, and it held up fairly well. The basic idea is that a player is most likely to repeat his numbers from the previous season, but you want to give some weight to preceding seasons in case he had an injury or just had a bad year.

Mohoney
03-09-2007, 02:14 PM
What are they supposed to do, pay their whole stating rotation $60Mil?

If we win the World Series again, and have that extra playoff revenue, it just might happen. Look at how much payroll jumped from 2005 to 2006. Maybe the added revenues, when applied to our salary structure, boost the available capital for the rotation to that $60 million level, especially when you factor in the fact that they're getting more work (in terms of IP) done out of their starters than a lot of other teams.

I honestly don't know exactly how much extra money the Tigers (World Series appearance), or the Twins (1st round exit) pocketed in playoff revenue, but I do know that it's money we didn't get.

Surely, the financial setback of missing the playoffs must have factored in somewhere when salary structures for 2007 were set.